What a show! You're making me jealous.

Interesting anecdote: Willy will be performing in my town very soon as well. Friends of mine were aware and plotting attendance. The very next day my father says 'Oh, son, I read in the paper this morning that Willy Nelson is coming to town. We might have to see that, huh?' To which I replied, 'Sure, Dad, but if you come with me you'll have to go with about 10 of my friends.'

Willy might serve to reduce the average age. Mellencamp, well, he is virtually unknown to my generation, though, I think he's hilarious. I caught FarmAid this year.

But to bring the topic back on point: You said that 'No one disputes that theft is wrong.' And I brought up Rousseau. An obscure reference, but I think relevant. If you recall his Confessions he talks about stealing trinkets - if he payed for them, he immediately lost interest. If he stole them, the trinkets remained a delight over a period of time. So perhaps we do not agree that theft is universally wrong, and that there is instead an important contextual issue to consider. In the case of illegal music downloads the context seems to be that pirates find music to be something that everyone owns: we may not all be able to own the Mona Lisa (analogous, perhaps, to the live performance) but we can all own a picture of the classic work: I can get one online, legally, for free, and print it out at home (burn the music to CD).

He enjoyed stealing trinkets. I once stole a pack of gum for the excitement. I was excited, but that I gained something else by stealing did not excuse the theft.

------------------------

If I copy a piece of music that I bought from an artist, I either have his consent or not. I may not need his consent, but if, at the time of the purchase there is an understanding between myself and the artist (or the business concerns that represent him) that I won't copy, then I do need his consent. If I copy without consent, than I have violated the understanding.

Whether or not downloading music is wrong depends on the means by which it is available for download. Specifically, if it is made available by violating an agreement or not.

You should never wear suspenders at a concert , I think.

If it's illegal to share intellectual property for free, shouldn't libraries be illegal?

Libraries are publicly funded works. Small difference but socially pertinant.

If it is illegal to share intellectual property, then yes libraries - institutions that share intellectual property - should be illegal.

Actually, should? I think libraries would in fact be illegal in that case. Unless there is some nuance I'm missing the statement is tautological (if that's the word).

I guess the only way that it is not true is if you say that public institutions are for some reason exceptions to the rule.

Anyway, I don't see the point. If sharing intellectual property is illegal, then I would argue that this forum is illegal because what are we doing if not sharing intellectual property? You might say, our words and ideas are not property because the state does not recognize our words and ideas as having the necessary kind of value, but, well, whatever.

Sharing intellectual property is not illegal. Sharing intellectual property that is not your property is what is illegal. Whether libraries share property that isn't theirs to share and whether or not it is okay because they are public institutions is interesting, but the answer to either question is not the answer to the question, "Is sharing intellectual property wrong?" or "Is downloading music wrong". The same question for me.
anyway...

The problem is that, thus far, theft has been assumed to be wrong. I'm not convinced that all cases of theft are wrong, however illegal.

Libraries have a history of public information sharing, sort of like the original open source, without getting into the specifics of publishing almost anyone can put information in, almost anyonce can take it out. This tradition and history has made them part of the cultural landscape. Also libraries share information much like the radio shares entertainment. Its patrons do not keep the material checked out, the artist is paid when the library buys the material. In the example of illegal downloading the patron keeps the information/media. If a library patron retains the media loaned it is theft.

Aedes was assuming theft is wrong and saying it is theft
EmperorNero was saying it isn't theft

In my opinion, those two have the two main viewpoints.

Zetherin was saying it may or may not be theft, but in either case it isn't wrong.

I'm saying its wrong because the guy who uploaded the music may have told the musician he wouldn't upload the music.

I'm assuming the word I or someone else gives to the artist in the marketplace ought to be true.

Radio must pay royalties, big difference there.

So if I started a website where people could download music as long as they reuploaded it later, it would be legal?

When the library buys the books the author is paid royalties. and I wouldn't know if it would be legal. Maybe if you didn't keep the music, many music services do this already, free download for only a certain number of plays then it erases itself off your system.

Wrong probably. Stupid certainly. I had to spend 3 hours the other week getting rid of a virus from a family member's computer. Yes, from an illegal file sharing site. Like sex, sometimes you can share more than you bargained for!

Yes, but in file sharing, someone originally had paid for the music as well, unless it was put onto the web from someone who got it from the band without paying for it, like a promotional copy or something.

It is probably technically illegal to check out a film or CD from a library and then up it to ur mp3 player, or save the film onto ur hard drive, but there doesn't seem to be a big effort to curb this possibility.

I see a very small difference though.

It is illegal to rip music and keep it from a library copy of media, except in the case of using it for non-profit educational purposes. Some watch Cribs or whatever and see oh the artist is just being greedy about his/her album royalties, but the majority of artists, writers, and producers of media are not rich. The issue i think is about equitable treatment not equitable compensation. Most of us wouldn't really feel good about taking royalties from a local artist because s/he fits the stuggling entertainer stereotype which evokes our sympathy and pulls on our ideologies of romance. Ripping off royalties from a mega star however, doesn't seem so bad because they "have so much". True the two artists are unequally compensated, but does it mean that we should treat them differently? Do they deserve poor treatment? Are we less culpable for our actions just because one can afford to lose money and one can't?

I'm not arguing the point of artists. Then pay thousands in equipment and more thousands in recording costs, and more thousands in studio rental space.

I'm just curious about why Libraries are allowed to do almost the exact same thing.

And like sex you can protect yourself from such side-effects.

My take is that downloading music for free, illegally, is only inherently immoral to the extent that it is illegal, and so antisocial - undermining society's structure (in a very teeny way). In and of itself, it isn't immoral. That act of doing so costs no-one but yourself.

However someone who only downloads music for free and does not support the music industry in other ways (e.g. buying CDs too) is a freeloading scumbag.

Libraries are institutions with history. The cultural history of the institution preserves it, even though with the internet libraries are quickly becoming obsolete. They are originally text warehouses where only privileged could go and read, of course at that point only the privileged could read. Then when public libraries came into being, mass printing and easily obtained media were not what they are today. Now media is easily produced and cheaply distributed, and people in industrialized countries tend to have disposable income for the purchase of media, the need for libraries in those countries may e fading. But in short libraries get to do it because they have history, and come from an era of public works and education. People are loath to change a positive public cultural icon such as the public library system.